Nathu Singh Ahirwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5641 MP

                            1
               HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Writ Petition No.12251/2021 (Natthu Singh Ahirwar Vs. State of M.P. and others)



Gwalior, Dated : 19.4.2022

      Shri Neeraj Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.

      Shri   Sushant Tiwari,        learned    Govt. Advocate         for   the

respondent/State.

Heard.

(1) The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India had been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the arbitrary

and unlawful act of the respondents by which the respondents have not

paid full pay and allowances for the suspension period and also not

paid the difference of salary to the petitioner from July, 2020 to

January, 2021. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the

petitioner is working as Panchayat Secretary in Gram Panchayat

Chirari, Janpad Panchayat Lateri, District Vidisha and the petitioner

was suspended from 10.7.2020 to 29.1.2021. A charge-sheet was

issued to the petitioner on 13.8.2000 and later while imposing minor

penalty of censure, his suspension was revoked. It was further argued

that though suspension was revoked after imposing of penalty of

censure, he was not paid the entire salary for the period of suspension,

rather vide Annexure P/3 dated 29.1.2021 it was observed that the

suspension period would be limited to the permissible allowances,

which is not in consonance with the decision rendered in the matter of

Y.S. Sachan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, 2004 (1)

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.12251/2021 (Natthu Singh Ahirwar Vs. State of M.P. and others)

M.P.H.T. 22. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that he

has made a representation (Annexure P/4) to the respondents

authorities with regard to the fact that he should have been granted full

pay and allowances for the suspension period and his grievance

would be redressed if the said representation is considered by the

respondents authorities in the light of judgment of this Court passed in

Y.S. Sachan's case (supra).

(2) Learned Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the

respondent/State has no objection, if such directions are issued.

(3) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after

hearing learned counsel for the parties, the respondents authorities are

directed to decide the representation (Annexure P/4) of the petitioner

in the light of the order passed in the case of Y.S. Sachan (supra)

within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified

copy of this order.

(4) With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed off.

E-copy/Certified copy as per rules.

(Milind Ramesh Phadke) Judge Pawar* ASHISH PAWAR 2022.04.20 10:59:22 +05'30'